So, Shorty, when you moving to Connecticut?
Judge upholds CT gun laws
- Thread starter Chris0nllyn
- Start date
So, Shorty, when you moving to Connecticut?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Because you don't regulate behavior by regulating tools. At least not in a free society.
It is not proper to unduly burden a true citizen with the responsibilities of what MAY happen. There is NO end to the potential possibilities. It is proper to burden one another based on what we have done.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Perhaps it's because ignorant questions don't require answers. This question is like asking "why do conservatives want to kill children" or "why do republicans want to throw granny over the cliff". The fact you even believe these things are true indicates the ignorance that exists in you progressives.
When a law forbids the sale and possession of something, that’s called a ban. Let’s put it a different way… I think a law needs to be passed that bans late-term abortion. Would you consider that a ban on abortion?
Why are you attempting to teach a pig to sing ..... :shrug:
parse the Newspeak:
B Cubed says 'Guns' in the general sense
- I am sure you can still purchase a single shot 20g in Conn. and that is ok for her
you are talking specifically about an AR-15 .. the dreaded Assault Rifle
you really should give up arguing with Idiots ... you will live longer
PsyOps
Pixelated
I gave you an answer, you just don't accept it.
You really believe that because 'right wing gun nuts' are against gun control that we are against safety? Am I more or less safe in my home without a firearm when someone comes to rob me with a weapon? The difference between you and me is you refuse to recognize that gun control has nothing to do with safety. It has never resulted in a safer society. There is no such thing as "getting guns off our streets". They will always be there because of the criminal. Ban them, and criminals will be the only ones with them.
Look at what happened in MD. They banned assault rifles, set a date for the law to go into effect, and Marylanders went out and bought more guns (especially assault rifles) than ever before. There are now more assault rifles in MD than if they had never passed the law in first place. Is MD a less safe place because of this? Are we seeing a spike in crimes committed with assault rifles in MD now that there are more of them in the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? I mean given the rationale you liberals keep throwing out there, we should be seeing a wave of shootings with assault rifles; especially in our schools and malls.
Opines the moron who could not point to one single aspect of the CT laws that actually affects public safety. Carry on, Mo.
Was Adam Lanza mother safer in her home with or without guns ,were the children of Newtown safer with guns in the Lanza house ?Who was more dangerous that day Adam or a maybe would be robber?
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
How many years did those weapons lie there plotting the massacre? And what triggered the weapons (sorry for the really really appropriate pun there) to throw themselves into Adam Lanza arms and force him to kill his mother and drive to the school? Or maybe we're overlooking another suspect. Maybe it was all done by the disembodied hand in the commercials. That one has always seemed a little strange to me. Relative of yours?
Last edited:
Point to one single aspect of the CT laws that actually affects public safety. Point to the part(s) of the new law(s) that would have changed the outcome of Lanza's actions. Be specific...not vague, evasive or obtuse.
PsyOps
Pixelated
No more safe than with knives or any other weapon Adam could have gotten hold of (which in his state of mind he would have). She lost control of HER weapons. This was HER responsibility. I am a responsible gun owner. You’re going to hold me accountable for something someone else fails to do? You’re going to pass laws that affect people like me because of people like Adam Lanza’s mother; or criminals that wouldn’t have any regard for the law anyway?
I am certain about this… it is stated in the constitution that I have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That amendment did not discriminate in regards to what arms, how many, and how many bullets. It simply said this right shall not be infringed. No matter how many bad things happen in our society, this right shall not be infringed. If you want to change that, amend it. PERIOD! Any other attempt to manipulate it is a violation of the constitution. I know that doesn’t mean much to you progressives, I know the constitution is nothing more than a bunch of suggestions for you, and that they are to be granted to us by our government only when it serves YOUR purpose – but it’s clear “shall not be infringed”.
Last edited:
Still no one answers the question ! Oh yes you respond with more questions and what if's,if it was a knife instead....NEWS FLASH it wasn't .Answer the question asked .
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Oh now you want to have a conversation?
PsyOps
Pixelated
I answered your silly question; you just don't accept the answer. Not accepting the answer does not equate to not having the question answered. 'Right wing gun nuts' are NOT against safety. But I would submit you that your safety does not demand that ALL OF US give up our rights in order to provide some false sense of your safety. What makes YOU safe is YOU. What makes you safe is YOU having the ability to protect yourself. There are no guarantees of anything. But one thing is a guarantee... remove our ability to defend ourselves, while at the same time violating our rights, and we definitely become a less safe place.
So, now that I've answered your question, answer mine... Was Adam's mother not safe because of the guns, or because of Adam?
Last edited:
Point to one single aspect of the CT laws that actually affects public safety. Point to the part(s) of the new law(s) that would have changed the outcome of Lanza's actions. Be specific...not vague, evasive or obtuse.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That is the best defense and explanation of the gun control argument I can think of; how safe we'd all be from guns if guns didn't exist.
Well put.
That is the best defense and explanation of the gun control argument I can think of; how safe we'd all be from guns if guns didn't exist.
Well put.
right because Swords / Knives / Pole Arms were not used for killing 3000 yrs before Gun Powder was invented ...